Talk:Ion Agârbiceanu

Notes and references

What is up with the notes and references section? The notes seem like references and so do the references. Please explain. Gug01 (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC) Gug 01

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ion Agârbiceanu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Winner 42 (talk · contribs) 21:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Overall Comments

Placing under review, should be done within a few days. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. Gug01 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, overall this article is quite compellingly written and highly comprehensive, but there are some minor issues listed below. I would appreciate it if you would leave comments and marks next to each point made so I can keep track., thanks.

All major issues have been addressed, passing GA review. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

• No dead or dab links, nice job
• Oxford comma usage is inconsistent

Sectional Analysis

• Lead
  • A native of Transylvania, he graduated from Budapest University, following which he was ordained This is awkwardly worded.
    • Fixed. Gug01 (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • the Apuseni Mountains, which form -> the Apuseni Mountains which formed
    • They still do... Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I was confused by the tense switch but this is also correct. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • his work disputed between the rival schools of Sămănătorul and Poporanism Please clarify the meaning of this clause.
    • It means that his work was disputed between the rival schools of Sămănătorul and Poporanism: that thy both claim him as their own. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok, you might want to consider adding a "was"/"is" to that clause then.
  • Committed to social and cultural activism in Transylvania Activism for what? Also "committed" seems less than neutral as it endorses his activism.
    • No, I beg to differ. Committed means that he was dedicated to accomplishing his goals, whatever they were: using "committed to a life of crime" doesn't mean I endorse said crimes. His activism was of many kinds, as the article goes on to specify: social, cultural, political, eugenical aso. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, seems like adding that he engaged in political activism might help. Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • with a break during World War I that eventually took him deep into Ukraine What did he do that is important in Ukraine?
    • He served with the Romanian Army in circumstances that are complicated as to be impossible to detail in the lede without confusing the reader to death. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Would it be possible to change it to, with a break during World War I that eventually took him deep into Ukraine while seriving with the Romanian Army? or some variant? Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • 1919, and would live there for much of the remainder of his life -> 1919, where he lived for most of the remainder of his life (Not set on this particular change, feel free to clarify the wording in another way)
    • Already done also. Gug01 (talk) 20:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • After the war, he involved himself in both the political and cultural life of Greater Romania, being voted into the Romanian Academy, and assuming the office of Senate vice president under the National Renaissance Front dictatorship. Run on sentence with poor grammar.
    • Already done. Gug01 (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Early Life
  • while he believed his great-grandparents were cowherds Where they actually, or did he just think that?
    • He is the only source, and presumably also the most qualified to say so. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • idyllic childhood is this a quote?
    • Paraphrase of a longer quote from Iorga, that attributes idyllic nostalgia to Agârbiceanu. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • According to the writer Who?/Of what? Is this WP:OR?
    • Agârbiceanu. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Literary historians describe this at the period of his literary debut, which was a collaboration with Unirea. Two issues here, who are these historians and the sentence's meaning is somewhat ambiguous. For example, when is the period and who/what is Unirea?
    • All of those who were consulted: Straje and Opriș, independently, in this case:if you look through the rest of the paragrpah, you will note how the clause is detailed and further claims in with the two sources differ are attributed. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • published there Where?
    • Already fixed. Gug01 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • which was at the time -> which was
    • Changed. Gug01 (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • the Cluj-based newspaper -> a Cluj-based newspaper? Was it the only one?
  • with pieces he signed Alfius, and later as Agarbi or Potcoavă ("Horseshoe") Please clarify this as it is confusing.
    • Clarified just now. Gug01 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Priesthood and World War I
  • the period Which period?
    • Circa 1906. Thay have dates after them and all. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • later also -> later?
    • Already fixed. Gug01 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • triumphal tour Who says it was triumphal?
    • Already fixed. Gug01 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• 1920s
  • A sentence or two more on his political and social beliefs outside of eugenics would be useful
    • We can't invent sources. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Agârbiceanu remained Patria editor -> Agârbiceanu remained the editor of Patria
    • Already done. Gug01 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • a current centered around objective natural laws Could use clarification and better wording, could be interpreted as Wikipedia endorsing eugenics.
    • "Supposedly objective"? Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • in fundraising for (or just inspecting) village libraries the comment about inspecting is awkward, consider rewording
    • Already done. Gug01 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Maturity
  • he became canon Could use an article.
  • Agârbiceanu withdrew from politics Considering that he seems to continue involvement in politics after this, could you clarify what is meant?
    • Well he didn't know at the time that the communists would reemploy him, so yes, he withdrew for a while, then returned without having planned it. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Under communism
  • then returning -> before returning
  • these found his reputation as a writer valuable for their own interests, and preferred -> they found his reputation as a writer valuable for their own interests, and they preferred
    • Sorry, that would be ungrammatical. The subject is "these"; using "they" would imply that the subject of the sentence has changed. Dahn (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence beginning with Granted the Order of Labor runs on
  • and was -> and he was
• Literary contribution
  • This section appears balanced, but due to my personal lack of subject knowledge and the difficulty of analyzing this article's sources, I will be requesting an informal 2nd opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania to look at the neutrality of this section
• Ideology and style
  • What is a Transylvanian nawab? Many readers will likely be unfamiliar with the term.
  • and always a marginal among -> and he was always a marginal among
• Major works
  • gold panning, her many children killed -> gold panning with many of her children killed
    • Fixed. Gug01 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Legacy
  • Not seeing any issues here, nice job

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The Review

@Dahn: @Biruitorul: User:Winner 42 said that he will start reviewing this article. I think you should participate. --Gug01 (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)